Two thirds of anti-virus users have infected PCs

  • 24 October 2014
  • 9 replies
  • 19 views

Userlevel 7
Badge +54
Friday, October 24th 2014 by Dean Reilly  

Although 95% of PC users have anti-virus protection on their computers, 65% of them are still infected, a technology boss has warned.
Thibaut Briere, marketing, strategy and communications director at Alcatel-Lucent, told Cable.co.uk that new solutions were needed to make home devices safer because rates of spyware and malware infection are getting worse.
Speaking at the Broadband World Forum conference in Amsterdam, Mr Briere said: “We’ve got evidence that on the PC side, most of the users have anti-virus, but most are infected anyway. 95% have anti-virus, but 65% are infected. It doesn’t work.
 
Full Article

9 replies

Userlevel 3
Isn't that the truth!  I have seen machines that have Anti-Virus products installed and are still infected!  That's is why when I clean my clients machines, I use a variety of tools available for IT guys for cleaning machines such as MalwareBytes, HitmanPro just to name a few!
 
 
Userlevel 7
Badge +54
@ wrote:
Isn't that the truth!  I have seen machines that have Anti-Virus products installed and are still infected!  That's is why when I clean my clients machines, I use a variety of tools available for IT guys for cleaning machines such as MalwareBytes, HitmanPro just to name a few!
 
 
I only have WSA Complete running on this machine however I do have other tools for when I want to run a chack of things. While I am totally confident in just running WSA I do believe in having a layered approach and have tools at the ready in case they are needed.
Userlevel 7
3000 Kudos!  Well done @ 
 
Very interesting article... I am not quite sure what they mean by network based though.  Are they monitoring actual traffic, or using a cloud definition approach that we already have here with WSA?
 
I very much disagree with the notion that AV does not work.  If 95% of devices have an AV solution, and 65% are still infected, AV IS working, it just has a bit of improving to do.  Also, do not forget that thousands of new badies are released pretty much daily.  65% infection rate is not good, but a whole lot better than 100%.
 
Traditional AV definition based systems also add to the infection rate in my way of thinking.  It simply takes longer to distribute the information of new malware to the userbase.  During the time it takes to assemble, and distribute, new definitions updates the malware is busy spreading.  Cloud based systems protect everyone instantly upon identifiaction of new malware.
 
I think that as we see more companies 'seeing the light' when it comes to the future of AV, and the importance of Cloud based detection, the infection rate will accordingly drop due to the vastly decreased response time at the device side.
Userlevel 3
That's for sure!  I recently work on a laptop that was running Mcafee and when I ran a scan using Malwarebytes, it found 170 infected objects - so just to show that AV software alone doesn't catch all the nasties but WRSA on the other hand is a very very excellent products at catching the majority of the stuff!  Even though I do run the Real Time Protection (Pro) version of Malwarebytes along with WRSA, WRSA is by all means one of the best AV (and a whole lot more) software that I have ever used!  Many years ago, I used to us Webroot's Spysweeper which is at that time a very very good product and that is why from that point I came back to Webroot for all fo my security needs!
 
 
Userlevel 7
Badge +3
Whilst I fully agree with @ and @ 's comments and advice, the article mentions "evidence" which supports the findings about two-thirds being infected, but what really needs to be considered are the various factors which cause user infections. That is, the relevance of user error (incl. browsing habits and decisions), the efficacy and up-to-date state and settings on security software etc. Other software (incl OS) updated and patched, and not vulnerable to exploits. Trustworthy apps installed, that don't perform unauthorised actions etc.
 
It is too simplistic just to point a finger in general at AV software. It's an old argument.
It plays a huge part in one's overall security, especially if it's a top performer like WSA. 😃
Userlevel 7
@ wrote:
Whilst I fully agree with @ and @ 's comments and advice, the article mentions "evidence" which supports the findings about two-thirds being infected, but what really needs to be considered are the various factors which cause user infections. That is, the relevance of user error (incl. browsing habits and decisions), the efficacy and up-to-date state and settings on security software etc. Other software (incl OS) updated and patched, and not vulnerable to exploits. Trustworthy apps installed, that don't perform unauthorised actions etc.
 
It is too simplistic just to point a finger in general at AV software. It's an old argument.
It plays a huge part in one's overall security, especially if it's a top performer like WSA. :D
Excellent thoughts Dermot!
 
Very correct too.  I seem to have at least one Facebook 'friend' who manages to pick up malware or PUA's simply by clicking anything and everything presented to them on FB or in Email.  Failure to keep Adobe and Java software patched is the root cause of quite a few infections as well.
 
The total security solution is AV AND the user just plain following well known and oft repeated simple steps.
Userlevel 7
Badge +54
I also think that one thing which is relevant here is what some programs class as an infection. I know that in MBAM it detects  a lot of stuff such as orphans etc and at some point I think Roy posted something about that, but these are just remnants and people see the figures and think WOW!! that must be good because it detects all of those.
Userlevel 7
Badge +56
@ wrote:
That's for sure!  I recently work on a laptop that was running Mcafee and when I ran a scan using Malwarebytes, it found 170 infected objects - so just to show that AV software alone doesn't catch all the nasties but WRSA on the other hand is a very very excellent products at catching the majority of the stuff!  Even though I do run the Real Time Protection (Pro) version of Malwarebytes along with WRSA, WRSA is by all means one of the best AV (and a whole lot more) software that I have ever used!  Many years ago, I used to us Webroot's Spysweeper which is at that time a very very good product and that is why from that point I came back to Webroot for all fo my security needs!
 
 
I would like to make a comment on this subject and being a user of WSA and Prevx before that! There is no need to use other tools as you mentioned above as if you let the other tool remove the infection or what ever it could do more damage than good as Webroot likes to help it's own users with any issues and will be happy to remove any infection, unwanted crapware and PUA's as it's free of charge with your paid subscription, if you use other tools then IMHO there is no guarantee, so it's always best and suggested to contact Webroot Support before doing anything and 99% of the users it should be the first step in any case. Now for the 1% most of us (Experts or Advance users) don't get infected in the first place you can use all the tools you want to clean an infected systems like I do as well and once done I get the person to install WSA on all of there devices as (that's my personal requirement) and I never hear from them ever again but let them know that WSA will let them know when you need to renew and they renew and some of them are friends & family and I go visit them and there systems are always clean and it'a awesome to see that in real world testing in my case I don't care that WSA can't be tested by the Big Testings groups because of it's unique technology and the WIN Cloud Database. http://www.brightcloud.com/platform/webroot-intelligence-network.php
 
Daniel ;)
 

Userlevel 7
Also you have to factor in what they are defining as an "infection" as that definition varies wildly in the industry.

Some folks consider adware to be an infection, and most AV products skip that kind of detection.

Reply